Judo is a popular international combat sport with an estimated 20 million active participants worldwide. Although with great health benefits, participation entails a substantial risk of injury. Whereas injury prevention programmes in other sports have been proven effective in reducing injury rates, in judo, such programmes are only described and have never been formally evaluated.
Amber von Gerhardt developed using the Knoweldge Transfer Scheme, Injury Prevention and Performance Optimization Netherlands (IPPON) intervention. This intervention and its development have been fully described before (you can read that here). In this study, she led our evaluation of the effectiveness of this trainer-supervised judo-specific injury prevention warm-up programme on overall injury prevalence in Dutch judo athletes.
Methods
We conducted a two-arm, cluster randomised controlled trial in judo athletes aged ≥ 12 years. Participants were randomised by judo school to either the IPPON intervention or a control group who performed their usual warm-up. The primary outcome was overall injury prevalence (%) over the follow-up period (16–26 weeks) measured fortnightly with the Oslo Sports and Trauma Research Centre Questionnaire. A modified intention-to-treat analysis was performed due to COVID-19, with estimates for the primary outcome obtained using generalised linear mixed models. Secondary outcomes included the prevalence of severe injuries, overall incidence, time-loss injuries, exposure, adherence and experiences of trainers and athletes.
Results
We included 269 judo athletes (IPPON: 117, Control: 152). The mean injury prevalence over 16–26 weeks was 23% (95% CI 20% to 26%) in the IPPON and 28% (95% CI 25% to 30%) in the control group. We observed no significant difference in all reported injuries (OR 0.72 in favour of the IPPON group; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.39).
Overall injury prevalence and 95% CI in the Injury Prevention and Performance Optimization Netherlands (IPPON) and control group at 2 weeks intervals over 26 weeks. The participating judo athletes' absolute numbers and percentages (%) are presented in brackets. The decreasing number and percentages from 16 to 26 weeks reflect the influence of the COVID-19 lockdown on the participating judo athletes.
Our secondary outcomes also demonstrated no significant differences between groups. Specifically, no significant difference in severe injuries was reported (OR 0.80 in favour of the IPPON group; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.78). Nonetheles these outcomes, all trainers and 70% of athletes perceived the IPPON intervention as successful.
Severe injury prevalence and 95% CI in the Injury Prevention and Performance Optimization Netherlands (IPPON) and the control group at 2 weeks intervals over 26 weeks. The participating judo athletes' absolute numbers and percentages (%) are presented in brackets. The decreasing number and percentages from 16 to 26 weeks reflect the influence of the COVID-19 lockdown on the participating judo athletes.
Conclusions
The IPPON intervention did not significantly reduce the overall and severe injury prevalence. Despite this, the participating trainers' and athletes' reported positive clinical experiences, minimal extra effort for implementation, and the potential for injury prevention. Hence, we do suggest the IPPON intervention be considered a useful alternative to regular judo warm-ups, given the high adherence and these positive clinical experiences of trainers and athletes.
The full paper can be accessed here (Open Access)
Gerhardt AL, Reurink G, Kerkhoffs GMMJ, et al. Effectiveness of a judo-specific injury prevention programme: a randomised controlled trial in recreational judo athletes. Br J Sports Med Epub ahead of print. doi:10.1136/ bjsports-2022-105869